I got a $500 red light ticket thru the redflux system of automated

Customer Question

I got a $500 red light ticket thru the redflux system of automated camera system.

There is an appeals court decision barring submission by these machines.

I used that in court and on an appeals process of the traffic court.

I was told that the decision is not in place and that there was a supreme court appeal of the case.

I want to appeal beyond the local Redwood City traffic court appeals process.I need help on doing it.Their plan is to get as many people fined and as many $500 tickets paid as possible while it is on appeal, an appeal I am fairly sure will fail, with the supreme court not hearing it, but even if they loose they win, millions.My plan is to have an appeal with a date set so far in advance, which will happen with the court system so slow, that I am heard after I think the supreme court dismisses the appeal, and which will make the evidence of the ticket something that was inadmissable.Can you tell me what I need to do, where to go, to file this in pro per.Thanks,Brad

The appeal was with the San Mateo County Superior Court Traffic Division.

The appeal from what I was sent now will be at the appellate department of the superior court for state of california county of San Mateo.

It says attention is invited to rule 8.882 appellant shall file an opening brief within 30 days after the filing of record on appeal, the respondent shall file a brief within 30 days after the filing of appellants opening brief and appellant may file a reply within 20 days after the filing of respondents brief.

My appeal is based on the people vs Borzakian decision stating the red light electronic photographic equipment is in admissible.

In my initial appeal the judge informed me that that is being appealed to the supreme court.

My estimation is that the cities are appealing it so that they can continue to collect the $500 fines in a time of tight money.

My estimation is that if I continue to appeal, the supreme court will dismiss their appeal before I have exhausted mine and I will then ask for costs and time associated with the appeal of a decision based on thrown out foundation for the ticket.

-Should I just state the facts in a simple format in colloquial english.

-Do I need a rocket lawyer form, I am a member.

-Can you give me any kind of time frame that the supreme court will dismiss without hearing the appeal and based on the average backlog when I will get a hearing date on my appeal.

-I think they might drop the ticket. I think they were on the verge of doing it on the appeal. The judge called off the hearing date, and called the policeman that was to come to the hearing and he never attempted to call me and I took the day off.

I think there is some guilt there and he almost allowed it to be dismissed.

There is no connection on appeal but it is a police error matter separate I am going to pursue separately.

You are appealing based on the exact right decision in CA. The case is still being appealed but there is no indication that the more conservative Supreme Court is going to overrule the appellate courts on this matter. In fact, LA County has already stopped enforcement of red light tickets (for your future reference as well) and as long as the alleged violator never response even one time to the notice the tickets are being disposed of on statute of limitations grounds and no collections are being sought.

I state the above to lend some support to your contentions that the red light cameras may be done in CA shortly.

In your appeal brief you set forth your facts in proper technical English (not colloquial) and set them forth briefly and clearly as you can. Once you state your facts, your next section is your legal argument and analysis section.

In the argument/analysis section you list your legal issues on appeal. For each issue you state the rule that the court should apply to that issue by citing case law and statutes that support your argument. Then you would analyze your facts compared to the case law you cited and you could explain how your situation is nearly identical to the issue in your case law cited. Finally, you would conclude your argument on each issue and summarize why the court would rule for you on that issue and reverse the judgment. You do these steps separately for each issue you are arguing on appeal.

Once you do your law/analysis section, you then conclude your brief by briefly summarizing each issue on appeal and why the court should rule for you on that issue and that closes out your brief.

In your brief you are going to need both a table of contents and table of authorities (listing all of the cases you cite and the pages you cite them on).

Thank you so much for using JustAnswer.com. I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

Can I either move up to a higher priced question on this, add a gratuity to make up the difference between my charge and the higher priced question, or whichever.

I have created the document to file right along your lines.

As a broker I am capable.

I am moonlighting with a full time job in addition which is why the delay in this.

Would it be possible to cut and paste the filing I have.

There is a citation I need for one wrinkle I did not mention, which will become obvious when you read it.

It is like a one and a half pages beginning middle and ending using the format you laid out.

I won't include the index page.

Could you look at it and see if there is an all purpose citation that will support the problem I have, I think it is basic. Again, I am looking at the long hall on this and think being in pro per that if I can get some citation on this one wrinkle I am durable to get some relief somehow.

I need to have this filed by 11am tomorrow as tomorrow is the deadline and I have to go to work at 11:30 am.

You will see where I need a citation/fig leaf or better, general or specific,if there is such a thing, to address a hole.

I am in it for the long term and thing with at least a fig leaf I can get some traction in the long haul from just the cost of the city having to address this.

There are two letters I am submitting into evidence listed in an index on the first page. I am not including them here but they are explained in the body. The first page has the indexes, the whole appeal is page 2, 3 and 4.

Everything is page numbered but the numbering does not show in this paste. The index opening page with indexes is page 1 and the body is page 2 through 4.

I was gong to number the document letters with document #1 and #2 written on top and including them after page 2,3 and 4.

Brad:

----------------------

Appeal of case c120668 citation number Sm56271

Table of Contents

Summary/Argument/Conclusion Page 2 through 4

Table of Citations

People Vs. Borzakian (Court of Appeal, State of California, 1/26/2012)

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2527

People v. Khaled (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1

Table of Evidence Documents Submitted

Document #1- Letter of May 6, 2013 notifying of the hearing date of May 24th, 2013

Document #2-Letter dated May 24, 2013, the day of the May 24th Traffic court hearing/appeal the court clerk mailed notifying me of the new hearing date

XXXXX XXXXX

63 Bovet Road #416

San Mateo, Ca

94402

Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX

Facts

This is an appeal of case c120668 citation 56271. This case is a red light ticket issued through the use of the Redflex traffic photography system as the sole means of evidence. Evidence of red-light violation using this system was submitted by Officer Pangalos Badge #301 San Mateo police department.

This Redflex traffic system evidence was accepted by the traffic court and fine was imposed of $490.

In a traffic court appeal of this ruling in a hearing held May 31st 2013 the commissioner ruled since I "was not present at the trial" I had "no input as to the proceedings", the commissioner states she explained "the Appellate Panel will not be looking at any new arguments presented as a defense to the charges since those arguments were not made at trial."

In the Redflex violation in my case pictures the system states a 3.62 interval of amber when I was approaching the intersection and that the light had turned red .46 seconds before crossing into the intersection.

That case clarified that the Constitution's Confrontation Clause gave defendants the right to question the actual technicians responsible for analyzing forensic evidence.

Here, Officer Butkus played no role in the operation or maintenance of the red light camera system. He merely read the sheet of paper that Redflex handed him.

Borzakian argued that this made the photo ticketing evidence inadmissible hearsay.

"Even assuming a 3.15 second interval meets the mandatory minim yellow light interval as mandated by the legislature, according to Officer Butkus's testimony then, he relied up text typed across the top of two photos, stating 'Amber: 3.15" Justice XXXXX XXXXXs wrote for the Court of Appeal. "Accordingly, where the evidence was being presented to show the duration of the yellow traffic signal met the minim interval mandated by the legislature--measured to the hundredth of a second -- the record does not support the conclusion Officer Butkus was otherwise qualified to stat that the representation was accurate" (Page 20-24)

Khaled objected the evidence was inadmissible hearsay and violated his confrontation

rights. The Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court reversed the

defendant‘s conviction

State law allows the use of red light camera evidence, but it does so only if certain standards are met. Among these is that the prosecution must establish the yellow light duration at the intersect meets the minimum state standard. Here, officer Butkus concluded the light had been yellow for 3.15 seconds and that this was sufficient. (Page 3-11).

The three-judge panel did not find creditable the argument that the red light camera photographs and maintenance logs were merely routine governmental business records that did not require authentication. The court noted that the records were created by Redflex, not the government.

"Without the property testimony, the maintenance logs (and therefore the photographs with text typed across the top) were not properly admitted," Justice Woods concluded. Without these documents, as in Khaled, there is a total lack of evidence to support the Vehicle Code violation in question." (Page 20-24)

The court of Appeal reversed the Borzakian's conviction in a decision originally handed down on January 26, 2012. (Page 20-24)

Conclusion

With the Redflex evidence as the sole basis of prosecution of this citation, and The California Appeals court in the Borzakian case, and it's publication to make it precedent, ruling the submission of this evidence as inadmissible, the evidence should not have been permitted to be submitted and the court should rule that the basis of the prosecution of this citation was inadmissible and the ruling of the traffic court should be overturned and the citation dismissed.

Traffic commissioners ruling that this evidence of inadmissibility of Redflex evidence should have been made at trial

In a traffic court appeal hearing Docket #C120668 held May 31st 2013 this fine the same judge/commissioner ruled that since I "was not present at the trial" I had "no input as to the proceedings", that the commissioner states she explained "the Appellate Panel will not be looking at any new arguments presented as a defense to the charges since those arguments were not made at trial."

Argument Analysis

In (citation I need from Paul) a lack of comity from opposing council and excessive difficulty in obtaining court clerk information on hearing and trial date information is grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process.

Court trial date for this infraction ticket C120668 of March 6, 2013 was set approximately 6 months from infraction date.

Due to budget cuts traffic court clerks office information desk is accessible only with a 3 hour line wait and until 2pm monday through Friday, or by a phone system requiring a 1 hour wait, giving an individual 6 chances in a given day to possibly obtain information on the case by phone.

Working in the north bay, in an area of limited telephone reception information on the exact trial date after such a long wait hold time, a cell phone connection attempt was thwarted with line disconnection after long waits.

Knowing of the Appeals court decision I attempted out of comity to contact the San Mateo police officer in charge of prosecuting citations to discuss any changes that might be possible from the court ruling and to obtain the exact time of the hearing.

Contacting Officer Pangalos resulted in no return call.

Evidence indicative of this lack of comity from the San Mateo police and Officer Pangalos can be found again at this appeal hearing.

Document #1 shows the letter of May 6, 2013 notifying of the hearing date of May 24th, 2013.

Appearing for the hearing I was told by the bailiffs that there was no hearing scheduled and that the hearing had been postponed due to a scheduling conflict of the Commissioner. When I asked there was no response as to why I was given no notification, but apparently the Commissioner passing notification to officer Pangalos of a postponing of the hearing due to the "scheduling conflict".

The day of the May 24th hearing the court clerk mailed document #2 dated May 24th notifying me of the new hearing date.

Conclusion

In (citation I need from Paul) a lack of comity from opposing council and excessive difficulty in obtaining court clerk information on hearing and trial date information is grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process. Therefore the evidence ruling of the inadmissibility of Redflex evidence that is the basis of this citation should be submitted.

Summary and Conclusion

This case is a red light ticket issued through the use of the Redflex traffic photography system as the sole means of evidence.

In (citation I need from Paul) a lack of comity from opposing council and excessive difficulty in obtaining court clerk information on hearing and trial date information is grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process. Therefore the evidence ruling of the inadmissibility of Redflex evidence that is the basis of this citation should be submitted.

With the Redflex evidence as the sole basis of prosecution of this citation, and The California Appeals court in the Borzakian case, and it's publication to make it precedent, ruling the submission of this evidence as inadmissible, the evidence should not have been permitted to be submitted and the court should rule that the basis of the prosecution of this citation was inadmissible and the ruling of the traffic court should be overturned and the citation dismissed.

Why are you arguing lack of comity? That is something I do not understand after reading your whole appeal. Are you trying to argue that the prosecution refused to turn over proper documents and evidence needed to defend your case?

I am trying to develop a legal fig leaf to plug a hole, the hole being not appearing at the evidenciary hearing where the raising of the inadmissabilty of the Redflex evidence, the only evidence submitted by the police, should have been submitted.

The commissioner said you are barred from submitting new evidence at my appeal at traffic court.

I am arguing lack of comity because I don't have a better excuse, other than difficulty in accessing information from the court clerks office as to the date and time of hearing after a 6 month wait between infraction and hearing date, combined with 8am to 2pm window hours, 8 am to 12 noon on Friday, a 3 hour wait to get to the window with the line they have, I don't exagerate, and 6-1 hour phone on hold wait, god help you if you are working, have to be mobile/working and in an area with limited phone coverage that keeps getting disconnected and having to repeatedly getting into the 1 hour phone wait line.

Court trial date for this infraction ticket C120668 of March 6, 2013 was set approximately 6 months from infraction date.

Due to budget cuts traffic court clerks office information desk is accessible only with a 3 hour line wait and until 2pm monday through Friday, or by a phone system requiring a 1 hour wait, giving an individual 6 chances in a given day to possibly obtain information on the case by phone.

Working in the north bay, in an area of limited telephone reception information on the exact trial date after such a long wait hold time, a cell phone connection attempt was thwarted with line disconnection after long waits.

Knowing of the Appeals court decision I attempted out of comity to contact the San Mateo police officer in charge of prosecuting citations to discuss any changes that might be possible from the court ruling and to obtain the exact time of the hearing.

Contacting Officer Pangalos resulted in no return call.

Evidence of my diligence can be found at the traffic court appeal hearing.

Document #1 shows the letter of May 6, 2013 notifying of the hearing date of May 24th, 2013.

Taking the day off for work I appeared for the hearing only to be told by the bailiffs that there was no hearing scheduled and that the hearing had been postponed due to a scheduling conflict of the Commissioner. When I asked, there was no response as to why I was given no notification, but apparently the Commissioner passed notification to officer Pangalos of the postponing of the hearing due to the ‘scheduling conflict’.

The day of the May 24th hearing the court clerk mailed document #2 dated May 24th notifying me of the new hearing date.

Conclusion

Grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process exists. Therefore the evidence ruling of the inadmissibility of Redflex evidence that is the basis of this citation should be submitted.

Summary and Conclusion

This case is a red light ticket issued through the use of the Redflex traffic photography system as the sole means of evidence.

In the included case law, grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process exists. Therefore the evidence ruling of the inadmissibility of Redflex evidence that is the basis of this citation should be submitted.

With the Redflex evidence as the sole basis of prosecution of this citation, and The California Appeals court in the Borzakian case, and it's publication to make it precedent, ruling the submission of this evidence as inadmissible, the evidence should not have been permitted to be submitted and the court should rule that the basis of the prosecution of this citation was inadmissible and the ruling of the traffic court should be overturned and the citation dismissed.

Yes, those two letters are enough unless you have evidence that shows you did try to get the information you are now seeking to introduce sooner (such as letters requesting the information from the prosecutor).

Your new brief is fine, except leading into the excusable neglect you need to state, "The court erred in refusing to allow presentation of the new evidence because defendant was not at the hearing and his phone call to the court failed as such failure was caused by excusable neglect."

We had the hearing this past Friday Oct 18 from the appeal you helped me create.

At the hearing the atty from the city said I had the right to a "Trial by written Declaration". On the traffic website is gives the options including that option:

http://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/traffic/

Clicking on the link for instructions to defendant for trial by written declaration:

http://sanmateocourt.org/documents/forms_and_filing/tr-200.pdf

It says at the end that if you are dissatisfied with the courts decision from the trial by written declaration, you may ask for a new trial (trial de Novo").

Here is the form link:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr220.pdf

In other words, I could have made the appearance in writing instead of asking for a new trial having to appear.

It is an obscure option on the page that I think few realize.

The atty said that by not opting for this option and not appearing at the trial for the ticket I had made, I statutorily waived all writes of appeal.

He had me when he said this because I knew nothing about this option.

In addition, this option was not selected because following my choosing to appear in person was when the hours of the traffic court clerk went from 9:00 am to 2pm and only until noon on Fridays.

The wait to find out information from the clerks office is a 2.5 to 3 hour line wait. You need to take a day off work just to find out the date and time of your hearing if you are unable to find your court date notice.

The atty seemed to indicate a request for a "trial de novo" was available regardless of whether I missed my trial date or following dissatisfaction with a request for trial by written declaration.

I am not sure if it was or not.

I am reposting my answer in my filing why I did not appear below.

Maybe that covers this. But maybe I can follow up with something to the court, file something as an answer, maybe saying I am in pro-per and can I have the leeway to do so.

I did not choose to answer by written declaration, the court date given me was 6 months from the infraction due to budget cuts, and I used due diligence in trying to find out the date for appearance, calling with a one hour wait while driving through northern california areas where my calls were dropped through my cell phone, and with a 1 hour on hold wait, having only 6 chances to get someone to pick up while on hold, on Fridays, only 4 chances with their 4 hour schedule.

My answer in court was that I am sure the citys attorney may have an obscure option that is not well advertised and I would just reiterate my case law and that that allows for excusable neglect.

The city attorney repeated his claim. I think he seemed to also indicate that regardless of trail by written declaration or trial in person that I had the option of filing a form tr-220 a link above.

Here again:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr220.pdf

Confused I did not clarify that that request for new trial was only for a trail by written declaration, that request for new trial, as you can see in the form in the link, is not a request for new trial possible following in person appearances, such as the one I had scheduled.

Question 1-

Perhaps the filing I gave, the citations in it, and my reference to it in court is all I need to do. Perhaps I cannot add an answer later after the appeal hearing.

But if I can, should I clarify anything and how do I do it.

Three points I would clarify:

-I did not select the option of trail by written declaration as it is obscure and at that time the hours of the court clerk were not what they are now:

The hours of the traffic court clerk went from 9:00 am to 2pm and only until noon on Fridays.

The wait to find out information from the clerks office is a 2.5 to 3 hour line wait. You need to take a day off work just to find out the date and time of your hearing if you are unable to find your court date notice.

-The option of request for new trial, trial de novo, within 20 days after courts decision is mailed, is and was, not an option of someone scheduled for trial by court appearance.

-I am requesting the court accept submission of this additional answer as I am appearing in Pro-Per.

(The more I think about it, the more I think the city atty took advantage of me at trial. The option to request trial by written declaration was never something I requested, it was a trial by appearance. The problem was the lack of access to the court clerk to find out appearance information. I could not have requested a new trial within 20 days only if I had opted for a trial by written declaration. Something before the short hours at the clerks office would not have even been considered necasary. The atty was totally blowing smoke up the courts rear end. There was no way of switching to trial by written declaration a few days and weeks before a scheduled trial when I was seeking the exact day and time. He was blowing smoke up the courts bottom and I would like to actually say that if there is any way to enter this information that you can give me.)

Question 2-

The trial judge exchanged with the city atty that the Bovorkian decision on whether it will be heard the supreme court has not been handed down yet.

Since we are in October now, when will they decide/publish, if they are going to take it on or not to hear it.

I don't anticipate prevailing here, at best I could hope to be granted standing.

What is the timing of the supreme court and coordination with my next move regardless of the appeals court decision if the supreme courts decision is to not hear the appeal of Bozorkian as is logical.

Below is a repaste of my argument of and citations of why excusable neglect should allow me to have standing for an appeal (you can find it above also)-

Court trial date for this infraction ticket C120668 of March 6, 2013 was set approximately 6 months from infraction date.

Due to budget cuts traffic court clerks office information desk is accessible only with a 3 hour line wait and until 2pm monday through Friday, or by a phone system requiring a 1 hour wait, giving an individual 6 chances in a given day to possibly obtain information on the case by phone.

Working in the north bay, in an area of limited telephone reception information on the exact trial date after such a long wait hold time, a cell phone connection attempt was thwarted with line disconnection after long waits.

Knowing of the Appeals court decision I attempted out of comity to contact the San Mateo police officer in charge of prosecuting citations to discuss any changes that might be possible from the court ruling and to obtain the exact time of the hearing.

Contacting Officer Pangalos resulted in no return call.

Evidence of my diligence can be found at the traffic court appeal hearing.

Document #1 shows the letter of May 6, 2013 notifying of the hearing date of May 24th, 2013.

Taking the day off for work I appeared for the hearing only to be told by the bailiffs that there was no hearing scheduled and that the hearing had been postponed due to a scheduling conflict of the Commissioner. When I asked, there was no response as to why I was given no notification, but apparently the Commissioner passed notification to officer Pangalos of the postponing of the hearing due to the ‘scheduling conflict’.

The day of the May 24th hearing the court clerk mailed document #2 dated May 24th notifying me of the new hearing date.

Conclusion

Grounds for allowing the submission of new evidence into an appeal process exists. Therefore the evidence ruling of the inadmissibility of Redflex evidence that is the basis of this citation should be submitted.

Failure to request a trial by written declaration waives the right to TBD, but not to a trial. In CA they have 45 days to give you a speedy trial and if they are exceeding that then you need to consider filing a motion to dismiss based on denial of your speedy trial right as provided for in CA Penal Code, Section 1382(a)(3), which states for traffic violations, you have 45 days from the day of arraignment or entering the plea, which ever is later (usually both happen on the same day, but while we're talking about the law, in theory, they can occur on separate days). If you mailed in a plea, you waive your right to a speedy trial, as explained in Vehicle Code, Section 40519 (b).

In arguing your speedy trial, you would argue they cannot just sit on a case to wait for the Supreme Court to rule and nobody has any idea when they will rule in the pending case on red light tickets.

You can pay again by just leaving excellent service feedback.

I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

This is NOT the practice of law nor is it legal advice to you, it is merely educational information for you to use to seek out a licensed attorney in your state to get actual legal advice from them. Please use sites such as http://www.martindale.com or http://www.lexmundi.com or http://www.hg.org to find a local attorney to get actual legal advice in all matters.

I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.

What Customers are Saying:

Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises!Gary B.Edmond, OK

Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises!Gary B.Edmond, OK

My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer.EricRedwood City, CA

I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight.
MichaelWichita, KS

PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H.Houston, TX

Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! ElaineAtlanta, GA

It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. TonyApopka, FL

Not only did he answer my Michigan divorce question but was also able to help me out with it, too. I have since won my legal case on this matter and thank you so much for it. LeeMichigan

Ask a Lawyer

Get a Professional Answer. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed.

40 Lawyers are Online Now

Type Your Legal Question Here...

characters left:

DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.

The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).